autox
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Why not "pro" cone chasers?(Can Jay be right?)

To: Autox <Autox@autox.team.net>
Subject: Re: Why not "pro" cone chasers?(Can Jay be right?)
From: Debbi Eley <debbi.eley@gte.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 99 12:47:45 Central Daylight Time
Jay Mitchell writes:
>They tried that with Pro Solo at one time, for a season or two.
>I'm not sure if it worked out or not. I have no basic objection
>to this sort of deal, but it's entirely different from what
>Dennis was proposing. It's one thing to offer an entrant a
>discount for working, another entirely to try to hire folks off
>the street. It's still not a panacea. See below.
>
>So what happens if EVERYBODY at an event decides to pay extra not
>to work? Who shags cones, operates timers, does grid, etc., then?

I thinks that's exactly what happened with Pro Solo.  Too many people paid the 
higher entry which left the 
worker base very slim. Those of us who elected to work instead of pay the much 
higher entry fees were ask 
to work an excessive amount of time. This was an even bigger problem when the 
weather was too hot, too 
cold or wet.  The hosting region was also ask to provide as many nonparticipant 
workers as possible 
which was a problem for smaller regions.

Another potential problem to be considered before hiring a group of non-SCCA 
'cone chasers' would be the 
legal ramifications of having non-SCCA people working events.  The signed 
waiver is fine for those of us who 
are honest, respectable people that love and enjoy participating in this sport. 
  For anyone else, it doesn't hold 
water.  Five years ago, there were 18 lawsuits pending against the SCCA.  In 
one particular case the 
individual  involved was watching the car that had just passed and did not see 
that the car behind him was 
spinning out of control.  The individual was killed instantly. The individual 
was not an SCCA member but had 
signed the waiver.  BIG DEAL! He was still dead and SCCA was still libel.  This 
accident occurred at a Solo 
I event where all safety requirements were in place just as they are at most 
regional Solo II events.  While it 
would be unusually, it is not impossible for a death to occurred at a Solo II 
event. We have seen this happen 
in years past.  Accidents happen. The more likely scenario would be a small 
mishap that turns into a big 
lawsuit.  Most people belive that Big organization= Deep pockets.

The point is an individual that is newly exposed to Solo II:
1. may not have a through knowledge of how the event is run(yes the cars keep 
running when a cone goes 
down)
2. will probably be fascinated by the cool cars up on two wheels running around 
the course
3. will be trying to gain some enjoyment from an activity that is only paying 
$5.00 an hour for their time.
Any one of the above could be an accident waiting to happen.  Even in Solo II 
with all safety considerations 
in place, a momentary lapse in attention can be disastrous.  

BTW in addition to SCCA, all 'officials' associated with the event mentioned 
above, several regional 
executives and a multitude of others were individually named in the lawsuit.  
I'm not sure how it was settled, 
but you may have noticed your national dues went up about three years ago. 

Debbi ( Did I just agreed with Jay Mitchell?) Eley

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>